I recently reviewed my mother’s life insurance policy. Someone sold her a whole life policy with a 35K death benefit for $197.00 per month. She was 71 years old when she bought it! She brought it to my attention last month after being diagnosed with lung cancer, explaining she could no longer afford the payments. She requested I review/change the policy to pay less so she would have lower payments. Of course, no one will insure her now! My mother does not have a lot of money and I think the guy that sold it to her is a jerk as she already had a term policy – which she cancelled after buying this one. Is there an ethical recourse?
Good question Pixley. Evaluating a policy that’s been in place for 7 years, as it sounds like yours has, is very different from evaluating a new policy. The key is to ignore everything that’s happened in the past and evaluate it only based on how you expect it to perform going forward. I would suggest getting an in-force illustration and running the numbers for yourself based on both the guarantees and projections. Every policy is different, especially those that have been in place for a while, so I really can’t say what you should expect.
Of course, the other way to get that death benefit is with term insurance. Look, if you want to make sure your children receive money no matter what and you don’t want to save the money yourself, then whole life insurance could be a good option. But you can get term insurance with a 30 year term that should be more than able to cover your children during the period of their life when they depend on you financially. If you go all 30 years and don’t die, you didn’t “get nothing” as you say. You protected your children and any other beneficiaries for that entire period of time. That is very much something. Any argument otherwise is a misunderstanding of how insurance is supposed to work.
Another reason occurred to me as I was reviewing the sales pitch from our agent. Maybe others have mentioned this in the comments, I haven’t read them all. Basically, it’s lack of flexibility, and the fact that you have to “marry” your life insurance policy for it to work the way it’s intended. This is similar to Point #1 but from a different angle. Obviously Whole Life / Universal policies get “better” over time (supposedly)…usually after decades. Even the agents would mostly agree you need to keep it for life for it to work.
In Australia, all insurance brokers are required under the Financial Services Reform Act 2001[10] to be licensed by the federal government’s Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).[11] Reputable and experienced insurance brokers in Australia will generally also hold additional qualifications such as a certificate or diploma in financial services which requires the completion of in depth studies in a specific area, the most common being general insurance or insurance brokering.
4) Tax diversification. To mitigate tax consequences in retirement, you will want to be taking distributions from vehicles that are taxed differently. A diversification of these tax treated products is very important. 401(k) gets taxed as income, investment accounts pay capital gains tax, and life insurance is distributed tax free. A mixture of these three mitigate your tax consequences.
Crop insurance may be purchased by farmers to reduce or manage various risks associated with growing crops. Such risks include crop loss or damage caused by weather, hail, drought, frost damage, insects, or disease.[29] Index based crop insurance uses models of how climate extremes affect crop production to define certain climate triggers that if surpassed have high probabilities of causing substantial crop loss. When harvest losses occur associated with exceeding the climate trigger threshold, the index-insured farmer is entitled to a compensation payment[30].

Insurance Journal Company

If someone really does want and need permanent insurance, and that may be especially relevant for those in Canada who own corporations, there are a variety of strategies to which the Minister of Finance is taking the axe for policies issued after January 1, 2017. As it stands now, the absurd inflation of surrender charges in the early years of a policy allow for a maximum funded LCOI (level cost of insurance) Universal Life policy to sock away a small fortune, tax-sheltered. That’s on the way out. But until it’s gone, there are some great applications that take advantage of a policy’s ability to pay out the investment portion of a policy tax free to a beneficiary upon the first death on a joint-last-to-die contract. That’s just one application…this is but one way insurance companies have adapted permanent insurance products to benefit the wealthy and there are many others, but these strategies tend to be offensive to the Canada Revenue Agency and as such their existence is always under threat. Life insurance companies tend to engage in games of cat and mouse in terms of finding and exploiting holes in the Income Tax Act in Canada, such as 10/8 policies or triple back to back arrangements, then the authorities shutter them. Rinse and repeat. This is probably not a bad thing…it exposes and then closes holes in the income taxa act. Frankly, the best use of an insurance policy is as INSURANCE. The death benefit is where the juice was always supposed to be. Not in engaging in elaborate tactics to skirt the rules. This is especially true as what is legal today may not necessarily be legal tomorrow. A lot of highly beneficial strategies amount to playing with fire.

Insurance Premium Co

Will you need life insurance when you’re 50-60? I’m assuming that the $13,000 per year you could put into universal life is on top of maxing out a 401(k), IRA and HSA, since those are very likely to be better savings avenues. If so, considering that you’re 22, I would imagine that you will be well on your way to financial independence by 50-60 and will have little, if any, need for life insurance at that point.
Because brokers work with a variety of insurance companies, they tend to have a broader understanding of companies’ offerings and key benefits. They are commission-based, which is a double-edged sword: they may be more motivated to earn your business year after year by getting you the best deal possible; or they may try to sell you a policy with unnecessary bells and whistles since that would pay them a higher commission. Regarding the double-edged sword: the best way to nail down the best deal possible is the annual review and re-shopping of coverage. The best way to avoid unnecessary “bells and whistles” is to remember that your needs guide what you purchase. If you don’t need “bells and whistles”, don’t purchase them. Approaching insurance this way is always the best way forward. Consider this: having options placed in front of you and explained in detail allows you the opportunity to hear about the newest “bells and whistles,” some of which may be just what you need or were looking for, but simply never asked about. Policies change, and new options are added by carriers all the time.
Mores also gave the name actuary to the chief official—the earliest known reference to the position as a business concern. The first modern actuary was William Morgan, who served from 1775 to 1830. In 1776 the Society carried out the first actuarial valuation of liabilities and subsequently distributed the first reversionary bonus (1781) and interim bonus (1809) among its members.[7] It also used regular valuations to balance competing interests.[7] The Society sought to treat its members equitably and the Directors tried to ensure that policyholders received a fair return on their investments. Premiums were regulated according to age, and anybody could be admitted regardless of their state of health and other circumstances.[9]
Thanks for the insightful article. I agree with the general statement that, in a vacuum, it is better to “buy term and invest the difference.” However, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on using whole life insurance as an investment vehicle in the context of the infinite banking model (assuming you are familiar with the concept). From what I understand, it sounds like a good way to achieve predictable and guarenteed growth on a compounded basis while allowing you to borrow money from your own policy and pay yourself the interest, all while always having access to the funds. I think it might be wise for people, like myself, are looking for guaranteed growth with little risk.

Auto Insurance